Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context about App Store import, platform defaults, and returned project ID and hub URL. It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by source modes, defaults, return values, and exclusions. Every sentence adds distinct information, and there is no boilerplate or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given nine parameters, nested metadata, enums, full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential scope, defaults, and return values. It does not need to re-explain parameter details, though it could more explicitly mention creation prerequisites or when a project should already exist.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all nine parameters, including the appName/appStore relationship and platform defaults. The description reinforces the main source options and platform default but adds no syntax or conditional details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it 'Creates a project' and explains the two supported creation modes (app name or Apple App Store import). It also distinguishes the operation from adjacent actions by noting that it does not generate a design or publish to a store, so an agent can identify it without inspecting sibling schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: create a project from an app name, or import metadata/icon from an App Store listing, with iOS as the default platform. It also provides a partial when-not boundary by saying it does not generate a design or publish. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as duplicate_variant or create_variant.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.